Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 77
  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Oxfordshire
    Posts
    4,154

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 534l4rk View Post
    Taplow – yes. My observations have been made using data from the monitor stations from Oxford and beyond down to Teddington. The subject related to river flooding seems to be controversial. Current thinking seems to support slowing down the rivers rather than speeding up. Whatever, the release of a greater volume at Datchet to my layman way of thinking will increase the likelihood of flooding further down. Certainly, the levels at Maidenhead appear to have been reduced by use of the Jubilee. I still believe the amount of rain compared with 2003 needs to be known.
    Are you sure about that, I thought current thinking was to reduce the flow into the river not the river itself. Holding the water on flood plains by reducing the amount of fast flowing hard surfaces that allow water to drain into it too quickly is the problem, stuff on the news today about planting woodland that holds water in a flood plain and reduces flow etc. The river itself needs to flow as fast as possible to carry flood water away.

    I remember in the 80's going to Hydraulics Research in Wallingford where my mother worked, they had a huge aircraft hanger with a scale model of the enitre Maidenhead flood plain modelled and the Jubilee river and Wraysbury areas down stream, for about 5 years this model was constantly filled with water and flooded the Jubilee river added and the effect of all scenarios mapped out, it was really quite impressive. So we have to trust the EA I don't think anybody on this forum is well enough informed to draw any real conclusions from casual observations.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    241

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chris_d View Post
    Are you sure about that, I thought current thinking was to reduce the flow into the river not the river itself. Holding the water on flood plains by reducing the amount of fast flowing hard surfaces that allow water to drain into it too quickly is the problem, stuff on the news today about planting woodland that holds water in a flood plain and reduces flow etc. The river itself needs to flow as fast as possible to carry flood water away.
    My impression was that letting it flow quickly from the Jubilee resulted in bottlenecks and flooding where the flow was restricted further down. In the past it would appear to me that more use was made of flood plains further upriver. Recent building development and use of gravel pits which have been excavated and then lined to take refuse disposal surely reduce flood absorbtion that used to prevail. Yes I did not put it very well - the point about slowing down the flow related to reducing the amount of water going into ther river. Once in the river it needs to be taken out to sea as quickly as possible. The use of the Thames Barrier was presumably made to allow maximum flow over the weirs at Teddington. I have stated that I am only making comment as a layman. For your information the levels reached below the Jubilee in many places did not reach those reached in 2003. I believe you have commented on the model before. I remember asking at meetings whether it would not be better that any flood alleviation schemes should start at the lower reaches of the non tidal Thames. I am still trying to find out if the rainfall this time was more than in 2003.
    Last edited by 534l4rk; 16-01-14 at 12:30.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Limehouse hole
    Posts
    437

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TT_WO View Post

    Snip.......... the water is the same volume only delivered downstream by another route, ie, had it not been delivered by the Jubilee the same volume of water would have been delivered by the Thames
    I am not a flood management consultant or anything special but surely if you BUILD a new river you introduce new surface drainage water which is then placed immediately back into the natural river above Black Potts much more rapidly than if it had been allowed to drain naturally into the existing river via existing drainage channels.

    It is obviously going to have a heavy impact immediately below where this water arrives, surely they can't deny it...
    I like boats

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    158

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 534l4rk View Post
    Taplow – yes. My observations have been made using data from the monitor stations from Oxford and beyond down to Teddington. The subject related to river flooding seems to be controversial. Current thinking seems to support slowing down the rivers rather than speeding up. Whatever, the release of a greater volume at Datchet to my layman way of thinking will increase the likelihood of flooding further down. Certainly, the levels at Maidenhead appear to have been reduced by use of the Jubilee. I still believe the amount of rain compared with 2003 needs to be known.
    Taplow guage did cause me some confusion initially as the level in the Jubilee increases as the Taplow guage level registers a reduction in height. I assume this is because the guage is positioned immediately upstream of the Taplow weir and registers a drop as the weir is pulled. I would appreciate confirmation or otherwise.

    The EA argument has always been the same amount of water arrives at Datchet and downstream that would have been delivered by the Thames alone and this is true if you ignore the water that would have been spread across the floodplains of Maidenhead. What is perhaps more relevant is the speed at which that water is delivered to Datchet when spread between the two channels and the resultant increase in volume of water that arrives at Datchet and downstream.

    A comparison of the amount of rain preceding this event and the 2003 flood will be interesting. I remember when a similar comparison was available for 2003 and the 2000 floods there was more rain in 2000 but higher flood levels in 2003.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    158

    Default

    I do not see any evidence of the Jubilee being slowed in this event, rather contrary, the EA issued a notice stating that the jubilee had been operating at near its design capacity?? since 7th January, the highest flow since it was built.

    I do not doubt that the EA did everything possible to simulate a flood with both computer and actual models but at the same time we should not ignore the claims of residents of Ham island who reported these were the highest flood level they had witnessed in 60 years.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Oxfordshire
    Posts
    4,154

    Default

    Which flood was the highest in 60years?

    I took this in 2006:


    Thats nearly as high as 60years ago but I am sure the 2003 flood was higher as was last weeks, but err.... I can't be sure

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    158

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chris_d View Post
    Which flood was the highest in 60years?

    Thats nearly as high as 60years ago but I am sure the 2003 flood was higher as was last weeks, but err.... I can't be sure
    The report was from residents on Ham island (Radio Berkshire 14th) some of whom had lived there for 60 years and reported 2014 flood was the highest level they had ever witnessed.

    I think 1947 flood was higher than 2003 which in turn was generally a little higher than this years flood, but not at Ham Island it would seem.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Just a few cables from Boulters Lock
    Posts
    12,528

    Default

    I don't think you can place too much reliance on fading memories of decades ago. The same people claimed in one news item that the river was flowing at 25mph IIRC. You only have to read a selection of newspaper and website articles to recognise the wide disparity of "(mis)information". Clearly things differ from year to year and location to location - a few years ago the river was flowing over the top of Bell Weir lock through the reception area of the Runnymede Hotel and out into the Windsor road but I don't think thats happened this year.
    Last edited by boatone; 16-01-14 at 16:54.
    TMBA - Championing the non tidal Thames

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Thames
    Posts
    3,543

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by boatone View Post
    a few years ago the river was flowing over the top of Bell Weir lock through the reception area of the Runnymede Hotel and out into the Windsor road but I don't think thats happened this year.
    Well it did cover the Windsor road as its been shut a week from the roundabout. I don't know about the hotel reception - but it would not surprise me it was that high.

    Rumour has it that its the first time there has been fresh fish in the restaurant.....

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Just a few cables from Boulters Lock
    Posts
    12,528

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by apollo View Post
    Well it did cover the Windsor road as its been shut a week from the roundabout. I don't know about the hotel reception - but it would not surprise me it was that high.
    http://www.runnymedehotel.com/flooding/
    The hotel’s interior has been completely unaffected and a core team of staff is taking calls and enquiries and will reopen as soon as access via the A308 Windsor Road is restored and the car parks have drained to allow for guest parking.
    TMBA - Championing the non tidal Thames

Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Latest YBW News

Find Boats For Sale

to
to